Document Z4aRa8kgK9EOoGLeEedoLXkO8
Lrv* \ > i
*i
n 1> ' '
4 ia
^ ^ v
i,.J
* J- '
V . + f*
- . *i
.r ,
The Society of tho Plastics industry, Inc
355 Lexington Ave New York, New York 10017 (212) 573-9400
\
r
M* *
Il-D-41
A
April 14, 1983
r." M r
R' 1 ^ ' - < ' i .. r ./
v `^0Nm<. ; 't. f-'KQrrr t:c
a^-t ^ry
i :; . /
James C. Ber. y Acting Branch Chief Chemicals and Petroleum Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards Resea: ch Triangle Park North Carolina 27711
CENTRAL DOCKET
SLC F iON
Re: EPA Review of the Vinvl Chloride Standard
Dear Mr. Berry:
The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI)
submitting these comments in response
you r letter of Fe- wbruary
25, 1983.
Your e t te r in uaea
r a r - Chaoter 6" dis
cussing the model plant parameters anc regulatory ter natives
which will
used as basis for revisions to the vinyl chloride
(VC) standard. In addition, your
forwarded
revised
reoort
TRW, Inc. dated February, 1982, and captioned "Vinyl
Chioride
Review of National Emission Standards.
SPI represents 1,200 member companies and w
national trade association of the plastics inaus membership represents over 95% of the production
the sales of plastics materials in the United
neV_ major rv. Its
and about 75% States, SPI
is organized into approximately 50 operating units. These
comments reflect the views of SPI's Vinyl Institute, formerly
the ?VC Safety Group, which is comprised of the ma^or
manufacturers"of vinyl chloride monomer and polyvinyl chloride
resin.
+l I ' IP. I'
.Lljl-lr-V
rfl h c- i.i^njpi^;
*1:
VAB.0001147864
V /r
* t
*>
James C. Berry April 14, 1983 Page 2
A
SPI submitted suggested changes to the vinyl chloride
standard in July, 1962, and met with Agency personnel in November, 1982, to discuss potential changes. A copy of our previous i x,-
'submitted recommendations is attached. While your February
letter did not refer to our suggestions, we trust that this
does not reflect decision by the Agency not to consider the
problems
by the e^i. ng standard. I nd
we
taking this opportunity to renew our request that the admin:
ive changes we have proposed be incorporated in the Agen *....
review ur
The proper approach to the review of the
dictated by statutory, executive and judicial guidance.
ion
112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412, provi
for national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESKAP) that
a threat of increased mortality or serious irreversible
illness Emission standards are to be set to provide an "ample
margin of safety
These statutory criteria mu
satisfied
by comparing data on the health effects of vinyl chloride in
the atmosphere at existing levels with date showing tha
reduc
tion in emissions would remedy significant
health
Under section 2(a of Executive Order 12291,
of existing regulations must be
on juate information
.1 r
4%
i#.
Jp
I-
VAB.00011478651
1 "1'"
' ""r
L-
i- "IM---!
VHr Jr-
.
j.|.
II i
`I'H.
: J . j H
rrkfj | ; ..I'.
. u.- |w.^sv *
j4-
*1
1
,
WMIt
mum
.\
James C. Berry April 14, 1983 Page 3
concerning the need for and consequences of the proposed govern
ment action. Adequate information, as the order plainly states,
includes the potential benefits and costs of regulatory action.
Indeed, regulatory action shall not be taken unless the potential
benefits outweigh the potential costs. I_d* $ 2(b).
The benefits, if any, from further reductions in VC
emissions must
reflected in monitoring and health effects
data. Any review
technology or engineering feasibility must
predicated on udies that demonstrate the health effects on general population of current levels of vinyl chloride in
the atmosphere.
only by such inquiry that potential bene-
n estimated. The material in your February letter
not meet these criteria Our comments on draft Chapter
presented first and
followed
comments on the TRW Report.
*CHAPTER 6: MODEL PLANTS AND REGULATOR!? ALTERNATIVES '
According to your letter, ^hapter and
revised TRW
Report "will form
basis for analysis
the economic, environ
mental, and health impacts
any change
the standard. Given
General nature of draft Chapter
it is difficult
deter-
V
* > * i
' " ................r rr^^frrrir iiiiiiiniiHi|Hpimi^i mwiiifiniiiP!i!iii muni. nuiiiii i. nhili-iu*nJi i .
AB.0001147866
**
A
James C. April 14, Page 4
Vi
A1 mine how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will utilize
the list
regulatory alternatives.
minimum, EPA should
calculate the current or expected level
vinyl chloride mono
mer (VCM) emissions and compare
the level of emissions,
ambient exposure, and resultant health effects that would
from application of each
the regulatory
draft chapter
not Drovide
for choosing an alterna
tive
neither
nor '.ef i ts
the alternatives
adequately developed.
M^del I Lant Size
7
A
The model
new ethylene dichloride (EDC) plants
design
*
pounds
400,000 roeaagrams (Mg) per year (880 million
Given the
new
\ T f 1 OC
be 1ie v e
that this figure should
doubled
tripled to 800 or , ..CO
ciaacr
(Gg)/yr (1.76 or 2.6 billion pounds per year).
Offgas Beating Value
The
s heating values for emissions shown on Tables
6-1 6-2 and 6-3 indicate that the heating value of incinerated
emissions remains the
or increases in relation to uninciner-
em * *
Post-incineration
ing values should approxi-
ma
`V .
5
j-.
- >
........... TfTi--r. `T
"Hhl-ibT.i; irvar.HMi-H
lAirv.. .
r .1 -
H.;
*i
A
James C. berry
'i i
April 14, 1983 Page 5
A
Annual Operating Hours
The annual operating hours for ELC piants is given
8,760 hours
year
hours per day, 365 days year This
100%
figure
un:
Stic.
be t
figure would
reflect operation
90% or 7,884 hours
year.
Plant Locations
r ca. rk,
and Baton Rouge, T ou
are
of potential locations for new plant
our judgment, new plants
most likely
built in remote
The newest plant
constructed
located in Point
Comfort,
Another plant
schedule
built in Convent,
Both
rural
ticns and would
more appropriate locations for
sion modeling.
Backup Incinerator
On page 6-2, it
assumed that emissions are combined
and controlled
sinele
However, typical plant
configurations include second, on-line backup incinerator.
The
backup incinerator has obvious implications when
calculating the
controlling emissions.
that
H
I : JS
' - 1
: I 'V '
j |! M l-**| a IK I
4!|<h|.r
MOHIII *111*'iih
|*n : :p .
...........
----------H.
H l(-.Hh
it.
AH\- ,!:!
4 K|n HKp-U;
Jr A: j>*<:!' t~<-. :
............ ................................................... ..
:?! i ........ .!
i'
'i+rV ' *>< .,?
, .\ * ," p:':
*U% ' ' '
. *
Tf .
f'
H '* *.
i
*i * 't
James C. Berry April 14, 1983 Page 6
I.
Chapter
modified to indicate that backup incinerators
normally required.
6. Fugitive Emission Characteristics
On page 6-5, the text refers
three plan producing
1,1,1-trichloroethane. The draft states that "any new plants
mil in
future would
** sties similar
may overly inclusive
expected
exhibit emission Chirac
existing plants. This statement 4. 1 one of the plants was
built in the 1940s. Moreover, other air emission regulations
controlling the amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
would tend
reduce the amount
fugitive emissions from new
facilities.
Regulatory Alternatives
New EDC/VC Plant
6-8, the draft lists three regulatory alterna
tives for
EDC/VC plants.
retaining the existing
level
control, requiring incineration
cxychlorination
vent or
operations.
considering v. 1J
regulatory
alternatives, the Agency should
mindful
existing EPA regu
lations that require the incineration of oxychlorination emis-
i n the
any r requirement in the vinyl
*It h J9
' - * "
... ........................... iut!* *. ^
il-fafUfes.
J
1 it| n't-: : T"l .- -n-!- rr,i.;t*&- 1 : :;j| *-4- -um:.............:+n
. rr frr.. T-* ' .................... .. ltJJHf. I-
.*s
I'
V
James C. Berry April 14, 1983 Page 7
A
K,
chloride standard. The pertinent regulatory categories
prevention of sicnficant deterioration (PSD),
reauirements
in nonattainment
and available control technology
(BACT) requiremen for some
construction permits.
REVISED TRW REPORT
Chapter
1-3, Line 23: The draft report states that
efficiency of VC reduction in
has not
n determined.
In proposing rules
limit VOC emissions from petroleum refine-
Agency has characterized in
smokeless flares
being 98% or more efficient in reducing VOC emissions.
Fed.
Reg. 29,291 (Jan. 4, 1983;. The Agency has
flare
efficiency study
John Zink Company that
measured the
efficiency
flares and found
Davis, "A Flare Efficiency Study
than 99+%.
1C-C ore n
the
AIChE March 1983 meeting in Houston, Texas (reporting or. the
Zink Study) "(copy enclosed). This study and other Agency data
should
here and in Chapter
"4, Line
Relief valve discharges that could
not have beer, avoided
permitted
the VC Standard. Ex-
A'
, .'
! . i"
-minstn I- , + .!riH-Mk!
Mta!w,'-HtMfl f |Hs.|i :
t!r- -(*11
# '
* .\dtt :
vr- : I-1'
t
1 L| H . ! I S|- 1:1 ii
I
-l*.-d i.
uU.. J Lt-iF^r. I'.
.. .1 .1
| .....
v
A
J &ntc s >, Apr il 14 t
Page 8
amples
some
the
such discharges have been pro
r ' -
vided previously
i
the Agency. See letter from SPI counsel
(G. Baise) to EPA (D. Goodwin), dated Feb. 15, 1973. Neverthe
less, because
the enforcement staff's subsequent interpreta
tions, we agree with the need for a more realistic definition
what constitutes an "emergency* relief valve discharge.
1-6, Line
The premise
the leak detection
t ion
the current standard is site specificity. EPA
nized that each plan
unique and that leak detection programs
n
tailored
thr individual site. This conclusion
ill is valid.
A major reason for variability among the leak patrol
programs was the lack of response
EPA regional offices
the proposals submitted the r ator s. Individual companies
we left
their own resources under short time f:ame for
developing these programs.
Page 1~7 , Section 1.11: The era summary should
modified
emphasize the impact
other requl?lory require
ments . New and modified VC emission sources undergo detailed
r evlews
obtain permi that frequently result in best avail
able control technology (BACT) or lowest achievable emir sion
rate (LAF.R) controls more stringent than those in the standard
4
P j -H
.4 ' i1
`4
V
r
Janes C. Berry April 14, 19B3 Page 9
A
The summary
should discuss the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
980 {Superfund) ,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
J , the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and state activities. The implication
that delegation of NESHAPS authority
states will reduce
emissions is unsubstantiated.
Chapter
Line
The proposed policy for airborne
rcinogens
ci
in conjunction with
rev lew
the
isting
standard. The
policy was published in
October 1979, and was the subject
*
that cast serious doubt on many
extensive public comments its provisions. Indeed,
I then-Acting Administrator testified befc Congress that
[i]t is uncertain whether or not this proposed policy would
survive challenge in the courts. Inside EPA, May 8, 1981
SPA has not ye'- responded to the comments and is in
process
changing the proposed policy.
object
rev lew
based on a prot
policy that has not been finalized, that is
being changed, and that EPA believes may
illegal
m*
i*
1 Is '
I'
|:
-i-| J
^HJ|- h. -.j'lbj h '$]*> Wfl
I njn HIIWH!?
. . ill. t *
. i'
V |I| ;-m-
rtr|s| ,
I -ir
i" y :
'1=
+.
w
J*
*i
.
James C. Berry
April 14, 1983
Page 10
A
*.,
object
the application o ne
i
philosophy
the proposed carcinogen policy to this
The proposal, for example, endorses efforts
refluce emissions
level without
for the resulting costs or bene-
result, the present review study has been restricted
engineering feasibility.
has ignored all other
the situation
on adherence
proposed guideline
hat will not
aaooted in its irrent form.
2-2,
2.2.1: The report
that TRW
r evie we d
October 1975 andard support document and infor
mation submitted to EPA under Section 114
the Clean Air Act.
should have reviewed
the written comments and 11 hearing
on the existing standard, the proposed amendments
the existing standard
Fed. Reg. 28,154 (1977)), and other
pertinent documents.
2-11, Line
The
iS for 1
production
include
the time to purge equipment prior
opening
and the time to open equipment for maintenance and all other
Lost capacity
not solely attributable to
cleaning and purging time,
the
2-12, Line 20 Da t. a
not shown for the state-
men in the draft correlating compliance levels with automation
-I .K
'1" "
-I,: I ^rx.!, j
* _ PlfttrjJ?! VFtKH-TBWIM'iChI'-JMBttU'JtrtiHimflJfwl
in,
*f-
' 4-
't
James C. Berry April 141 1983
11
A
and computerization.
also the letter from SPI counsel
(G. Baise) to EPA (D. Goodwin), dated February 15/ 1979, on the
subject
some causes of relief valve discharge
Chapter
3-1,
3.1: The
ions in this Chapter
should state that the extremely simplifi
hev
not adequately reflect the complexity or
processes
or the difficulties
compliance.
3-32/ Line 25-30
his
is an unclear
tempt to paraphrase the provision of sections 61.65(b)(3)(v)
and 61.6 5(b) (4)
statement might
from reactor agitator and relief valves are addressed by subsections 61.65(b)(3)(v) and 61.65(b)
(4) , respectively. Agitators must have double-mechanical seals or the equivalent. Leakage from relief valves must be minimized by installing a rap ture disk between the equipment and the relief valve or utilizing an equiv alent method.
3-35, Line 12: Use of chemical treatment has
n
in preventing polymer build-up, but only in certain
ecuipme n t, While the subject is mentioned, the significant
with chemical treatment are not given adequate
consider a tion.
v' *r,:ir I
. . ,i-S-i| . i M i H-f. J J t -- : 11*1-7 |
f TF-.::TfnMWP*r >
,<n. ******* 'T I
'! T' "I 'fir
r......... ; ki
fc v
; t^r (. .. j,
vm i
9
% 4 James C. Berry April 14, 1983 Pace 12
4
A
Chapter 4
that the industry is per~ terming better whan
recur r ea
the standard, and we believe that actual emissions
le than that ref
in this chapter For example, the
imated actual emissions" column in table 4.4 (for a typical
PVC suspension
nt) should
revised, for the reasons ^ A. w
*f below, to include at most the following amounts.
Sour
Estimated Current Emissions fkc/Yr)
Primary control
Relief v
aisena
Combined
Fugitive emissions
tor opening
stripping
68
4,780 13,600 2f , 500
460 44,408
This
reduction of 53,622 ng/yr below the level of
emissions permitted under the present standard, about a 67%
imor ovement. Incinerator s nor maliv
c. m at em i s sion 1e ve
well oelow 1 ppm
a fic ur e
is ta?
Drimarv control
0% of the a2.1owab le em i ions.
ion
I. : - H'
M ' l!-!'!*?`if!
i ! *!: 1 nf:t*&"r***ttmiti-imnru.-iretHtiKT.-:ireawiwi................. 11--. .
1 ............................ .......................+
-h , . S i :
,, ...:
... . ,.tl
"l ! S'
' A : I *4 ': n1 =
u.1 .
A
V
V . J ame s C. Berry Vi"T April 14 19 8 3
^. * Page 13
Th
P 'k
*
s
V The reactor opening loss in Table 4-4 was caj.cu.atec on
an average of 3.5 batches Detween openirgs at 8,80C ppm residual
VC based on EPA's 1975 Standard support document. Various im
provements in pure ir,c methods and decreases m opening frequen
cies lead us to believe that average actual losses are ess
han a auart r of that model. For purposes
estimating reac
tor opening less emissions, we suggest assuming - J
reactor s
are opened after every 1C to 12 batenes.
Page 4-1, Lino 9: The craf states hat EDC/VCM f ants
using pure oxygen as a feedstock have reduced emissions below
those set bv the standard. While this mav be correct, it is
i L
-- ii
* ^w
' ^
a.
not
to
mention
h
W
Kt j
Ci
e rr. i s s ions
levels be low
: -based ED
he stanaarc.
w * c n t. s
* d^ 6
so control
s
on page
4
_
c
.J
r esen
data showing h a actual emissions from airbase* 1 a n t sn
are substantiallv lower than regulated emiss. r\ c
prevent
misleading implications, oc V- * -
oe s
-- e . * - is * I- u.^ c* be acoressec.
Page 4-2, Table 4-1: "Centalnmen
is -istec as a con-
I technology for reactor elief valve discharges. This > c
not discussed further
eve: several other comments m sec-
icn 4.2.3.3 leaa us c oelieve tha
i is m a v r e f1ec a mi sunder -
standing cf the pr oc ess
>.
+|, I1'
f -Trat-n WHf.T i:i A ! j * = !4n1' "f I-H^i!-I ' '
-L| "
Ilvlftn
M-4
--*** Hr^
i.
....................
,|, LUra|t4%! U!Hft-,r:4LK.fi.L Mr.HW
.............
K-
-K rh
I
r
i j L'*'+ " -T 'r1
. A I I ' -I . .
T
-I 14
: V
M
*\m.
1- L
1 '*
-> I
*t
.
James C. Berry April 14, 1983
14
4-5, Table 4-3: The estimated actual amiss'ons
.roit. the primary control
shown
beinc
ivalen
o the
reculcted emissions.
must be incc
par ticuia: *} l n
light of the statement on page 4-1, lines 8-9, that actua' er
are "well below
ppm
*
w f i-4
rt
it
re
appr opria
figure -or actual emissions ;s 316 kg/vr, no
kc/vr.
tal emi ions should
changed from 4C.11
3 7,266 kg/yr.
ma tely
be low
e s t i in a t
pe r mit ted
emissions c. Z r approxi-
the s t a n g a r c .
Table 4-4: As mentioned
i f
vr,
*
to lis
and the
e stima ted
tu a1 em
tor opening loss o
equivalent
primary control the regulated
As can be
e ter mined from. a review q
a u s -fc - *
rv ' s semiannual reports, both primary control and reactor ooer. i nr
emissions are substantially les^ tu = -'
^
-4. w ^ W
'w . * W- 1 i
.i 1 c- lCC levs i g
numbers should be revised to 6 8 K
h e p r i ma r v
ntrol and 46C kg/yr for
ter coeninc ioc
: c ai emission
-cures snou,,
c n aneed t 4 4,4
KC /V '
'4
- j W l * ^ , 6 0 8 k c / v 1
respectively.
dis
> r-
4-12, Line
- Simply because thev
',3^ly curing operation.
of flares should not
c r moni ; j a
f '
p T ,
' Tri | 'I-: i'
. -Jp j.i.j-
- :f-1^.,;.-p-...
.tr:-r:r- rtjk:----!- r'-.|r. ,
j: i pjiml;
< . ip. t!iiy:^pi^
-n ' ^1!
VAB.0001147877
* i i%h
d a *-l O'1 e|'i + jf i-M J|
-f H r,!lr'! ir:^ ".- : m r *i -- .'.vMj ....
.
-i .. !. r
l.:. ,.|4 - : I-
* ^4 > |V{,
f .,
m % ".. : * *
*
>
c
vy- -r
f'
-It
' - *.,v - i 4- '*,
i .' J
J
* P<J
/ ..........................................
* J *^
`
. i'
; :
r*
fc
^.
-s"> ' *' J ,
,' _ Vt o ame s C. Bet ry Ape i 1 14, 1983
!, Page 15
A
r; *
'*1 Page 4*~12, Line 7: As noted above, EFA has informa tion on flares showing greater than 98i efficiency.
*a
Page 4-13, Section 4.1.5: We know of very few plants which are using carbon adsorpi ion successfully now. Problems
with impurities and comonomers, especially vinyl cetate, are i I*,. k serious. In any event, the buildup of methyl chloride requires
a purge to an incinerator, which, if present, n\ay as well be used for the entire waste stream.
Page 4-19, Line 5: The statement that with the change
o larger reactor systems, the po ential quantity of emission
V`
from the relief valve is increased is incorrect. No data are
provided to support this statement. Indeed, page 4-23, section
4.2.3.1 indicates tha
newer reactor systems provide
i.ewer emissions to the atmosohere and that larger reactors result "in a lessened probability of relief valve discharges.
Moreover, the first paragraph on paae 4-42 states that one firm
had no reactor relief valve releases for 31,000 charges at
V* <.
t
heir large reac or facilities.
These citations refute the
Li- * *
statement made on page 4-19.
In addition, the word "potential describes the possi
'_-W
bility of an event. 11 may
that the amount
& po t e n tia1
release from a large reactor could be greater than that
/r
..
:* ,*! u. - k .j-^Hfir-i-^nhsurTiv-M. rus;- Ni ^i-
^
-P-l'TM ' neTs-
VAB.000114787&
" . 'll:'--: -I rii-'l^l-! '.-ItAl-. fi-'.;
II ^ i
: |+. . s .IJWik:. - .b4
------.i.fpi,., ..
* * >4
. i'
>' - '
. b- P
^mry'7. 'tt.-y -. '
-M '-Vi-v'*'
. - _ 1
'-
:
-?
t-
James C. Berry Ap r i l 14, 1983 Page 16
smell one, but the probability
such
event is likely
less. Most large reactors are
newer plarts with more modern
safeguards
that the potential is lessened.
Page 4
Table
More complete data could
assembled from existing reports submitted to EPA.
72C may
Page may not
Line 34: An increase in temperature ^ a relief valve discharge. This *
depends on the rupture disk/relief valve settings, which are
function
the design pressure
the reactor. Some polymeriza-
ions are run at temperatures in excess
Page 4-28, Line 13:
draft incorrectly implies
hat gasholder is the solution to a multitude
problems but
does not conclude" that gasholders are economi
feasible.
Page
Line 33: The TRW report tends to overstate
the value
an auxiliary venting system
failing to adequately
consider plugging problems that create concerns for safety.
-33, Line 30: A major problem with water-sealed
oas holders is the position taken by EPA that the seal water
was source of VC and that the open channel had
controlled
The disadvantages of gasholders are generally understated.
4-36, Table 4-10: The table should indicate
that the figures are in December, 1979, dollars.
- fi
w,-W
> r*
VAB.0001147879.
* . "*
&; A
* cP|^A 1
* v^V ^ ''
` ^ *>v-
' Y^
; 'K- .
W ,:,,lvS* s't'k;?r* S s-','\,.V-<' ' 1 * t. 1
. . *,* -i .
v>-. -
\
^.; .v
fi\*m *
I
^f:
>
*
\
1- `
i. 4
f*-
4 iAf *",
.
\,
*Vv.:- ` l sI* i* *
" 4*
, V* * #.
rir ia%'
rN* -^7r ^
N , .
it
.y.
|l,V ^
4 .. *. T. * "j +
-f
rY
41 4i
'iM:
*' .v L
i^-
w;-
^L vA * * -
James C. Berry Apr 11 14, 1983 age 17
Page 4-39, Line Is We support TRW's conclusion that a safety relief device vented directly to the atmosphere will always be required, no matter what system or combination of
systemsr. if'-Y is required. We concur with the statement on page 4-17 that safety regulations and insurance companies require and strictly enforce the use of safety relief devices on pressurized equipment to avoid any explosion hazard. We would, however. object to the report's presumption that gasholders will stop anc contain emergency discharges*
Page 4-48, Line 4: The sole purpose
g asholder
in any recovery system is to provide surge capacity before the
compressors. It is not, as so broadly stated, for venting com-
pressor relief valves, pumps, weigh scales, condensers and knock out tanks.
,, v-
er:
, ^ 1,
Page 52, Line 23 r
The
states that stripping
o lower RVCM
is prompted primarily
the VC standard
This statement makes no sense because,
were true- manufac
turers would not be stripping some resins to levels below the
current requirements. Actually, other marketing reasons prompt
producers to strip some resins oelow the levels set
the regu-
lation.
the stripping levels given in Table 4-11 on page
4-55.
* *. s'
.j -M.i.
H
1+ffCttElSftHHUWHttgttHfWlH PHWf
...w.impiptmuniiiiiww.iPiiu^wti !<> wntnumni'
VAB.000114788'
ni:? - in. *
n a --Jr !>: i-ijT-i ;
l-'HrrM!' :
J-" *y- 'H
Mln-.-J
c; *rfjr if;* 4t-.J
i*
;v* v
v >
n r i>- -r ; v\ r*'^-*T> >7?nY5* J m*
A e ihv ri -V^v*, .V -* *. J '*> * J-`-r .
-
%ir^
r/ 1 " '
1 11 .
.* .. *
' t.
f* ' v ^ `1 ;
V . ' ..
Ifcf Wv >j*
l*F*.
H
w.*.
Sv1 * n
S3
i<-Af
r ' P
-
.r * *
-. d
i ,* i
f 1
*\
t 0*?,
A >
1983
-
\ ,rr
* h.
V&v.w.
`-W-v
C' '
'.'*'' '
cv>a?; t V'` ^Br 1 f > P`Y *v *
* L
&?:*>: r->:
f*
/-
It
w * *.*
mv:. 4
A >* i*
rf7f^ /
f>*i' /V
7*? Sj*'*r'a ^ r* V ''.
t"VVJ.i'/i.>--,' - '*-v'
4
2PA >;
. j11
-
J&*:...
hf* '
A'
.* ; . .4
5fctt -v
fi'jv.- .
J *
100 iA *' 5
%
f* l
tied
/
*ag 4-55. and 4-56, Talble 4-xis This table
only
,'4
th e
l' should
production
Since industry included
has submitted all plants
this data represent
r 4-79, Lift* 26: the manufacturer.
VCM calibration gases are certi-
check, the plant can r un com-
parison test with th*ir calibration gas.
.1- - N' 4 **
alysis
Wethod 1C6
unnecessary.
*
ti >
'h - ? r* ^
Cha
>wf
*< pt^
U
?age 5-3, Line 11: Inprocess wastewater stri pper
j ^
fluent does not need continuous monitoring d: ily sampling
when it can. be historically shown that the effluent is well
below the 10 ppm level.
t' Page 5 IS stated that "compliance with
.#
the regulations has drastically increased the quantity of in-
%; '
v< ' process wastewater discharged from many plants." reference
is given for this statement; however, no details ( supporting the
tf claim are given. Supporting details should
$r
be provided or this
statement should be deleted.
Page 5
Line 8 The report suggests that monthly or
semiannual averaging
eactor opening loss would apply mainly
ft *
/
v*V
J,f *
3wi
t- +
m
kf * -Y*t
ih? bet
:'ir
f 'Vl '
'*
E^/appf^Ni*UfV ilr ^ Litar,5 *1 -
i* *
t. . *
*
L|r- | * ^1 m
^- j
VAB.0001147831
A1.-;?!.'.pfydN:%> i ^ f.
III.;.....
.r
I `Pi
>uwf ik||i 1-9-H h-f.. 1^1^.^.
4 ti! 1'Pa t' = ?:-l;r:t: >=
- :. .
.
. . II
MtWHfhltHtHJmHi
.<i^ailfflllHfi|--IIMl
!;-.
...............i-trln t .,.f
r
t - i ,n a -sir.-
'$"4* ?<?&$** ^^
iflDHfSflF jn!* % jmr.,X*^S;1*-.J-1'. h-,C v `1'V*,* ? /* /' : v-
*p
'.
a- i
_. 1
rM.r'v' *..;*. ;:*-. -..>
Ck**.!
|L.k4
1fc. nr
^k
J
' # '
*'*
r* '*"
. .* .1.
, ;'
r-
jfSjeKtv1^ -** .^Ll' U.
*
K '-'<fta. '.. '*>
`
-b a - -j
. ..
'
r ,1 ^ j= V^V `/ '
;#'. : .
4^
v''S ;* r
^,, =>
r^i ' :
-y,:
:
ftv dt
V1, ^r - 4* ,j-
4:
.2_ i
.
1
* V Js ' J.
ft C. Ber.ry il.14, .1983 Page 19
' .'t '
V: ' \
jfc'.
** * '"'I. " A^ '
yv <r> '-
t*r ,
vVl
ii
j-tV
k" \* j *
1 r * "C i
Y-
r; >'
>' *s
*J
:->'
.1 r*
TV I4
V
f*
ft
\
rA ,1
r
t* 4
> ' '?
iJP-S '
4 \
.
:v- <
P 1/
I"
/'-.
IJ 4 lf'4
i e
.ij,. ('
1
*,
;>JV-'V* >>
N^. r *..
j '
b*<v
* >.
;=**
'41,
k
t:
Yiv+ i* *#
\a ,
% SXt-'* I
b
to bulk processorft and other plants
ipping
the reactor.
* *r
There is ho reason for limiting this concept to bulk processors
and ether plants stripping in the reactor. It can and should
K
he applied to all reactor openings.
(NSPS)
i*
Page 5-6, Line 20: New sou
performance standards
a
should not be applied to existing sources unless they
ab
become new sources through plant modification
expansion.
Page 5-7, Section 5.9: The discuss ion concerning dryer
emissions is somewhat misleading. The example given
* i.
on dryer emissions for a new plant being equivalent to the cur-
t
rent standard RVCM level of 400 ppm. The ex--.pie given
based
on one application for a prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permit. Many recently issued PSD permits (not applica-
i* n
p
tions) specify RVCM levels substantially less than those cur
rently allowed by the existing standard. It would be interest
ing to know the permit RVCM level for the referenced applicaion.
This discussion implies that indirect drying reduces
3, f.
*
emissions. This is incorrect and misleading. Not all RVCM is
p
emitted from the dryer exhaust as stated. Some also emana
from the blend tanks and silos, while some remain in the resins.
The figures alfto improperly assume that the resins will
! r t
400 ppm RVCM
oppo ft e d
cu
/v
it 4. f
tt*
V / `AXfL
Arx* fv,.
>r
r
I JlLI-
/>.
r +\
rh
/ w f_ !'d^' v'i
*k,` i *
t
* j+
000114788;
. I' .
\A j :4 iH'-- f.
.-.u v#v--.ti h'
iimmufr--
i i iri iilUniiliii ulmol fiunruf m iinnH|HliW<W4< MliilHOtlWIIIIiinHftiiif<lilHHMftH<iiiiiiBm 4 HWPI ................. 'i jimimhhhit*,,kifii|htw,|L.. i-d,
>, |i-i
- v^*- "iTC:..
tV.
n*, ' v .-
**
^b
A: 1Cf. f * *r-
*t
James C. Berry April 14, 1983
Page 20
EPA considered regulating sources after the stripper
*
during initial development
the standard. The required strip-
p* ' < ping levels were selected, in part,
that subsequent
[. , h',
emissions would not exceed the
ppm level
addition, SPI
t .
comments on the original standard reflected an '.ndustry preference
control emissions through stripping rather than through con-
post-stripping emission
However, the -draft
*. report fails to note that the present standard gives an operator V choice between ripping and other control methods
C.F.R. 61.64(e).
Page 5-7, Line
The prevention of significant deteriora
tion (PSD) application should
identified.
Page 5-7, Line
Indirect drying would have little
on emissions here.
obsolete technology and does
not apply to PSD situations.
* Page 5-7, Line 13: The draft should be factual and not
Kt. *
j udgment&l.
suggested regulation
lend tanks and centri
f uces
subjective and unsupported
data.
H
st
Page 5-8, Section 5.11: The premise f *the
is ting
leak
ection
ion of the VC standard
site
ificitv
EPA, however, did net provide guidance for the
elemen ts
leuk detection program.**
ht-V* ' +
** :` "
;
..
pa" a ir*jVv-t'Tgr r'?, 'S
i i * * *'
r
........ .......... ................ :++
yttwtUPmrmmPpmgunffp--EiiqiiH jUBMJffif-afmmmnmmwi\IJSuWlI Iti-
= -
|. r.,.
*
-
tvV
r^4v '
v* ^ _ i=.>
ft".-' s
'
f
iI
J . ;* Yi + '
A'V*' *
*
\
rj
A
r
Y
V
h_
*1
f^U' W*1*#
,S-*
7*
* '
*Y*r , ,-4.< 'i
. p /
r bV* ,
|V
a N-la' ,
<< r
-^i+/***
\J .
-I I.
* * r
v#' V.' Y^`
p *'f ft 1
'*?*
hT"' ,*Vt
p
n *'
ki. *.
7.
James C. Berry April 14, 1963 Page 21
Page 5-9, Line 34 Back-up devices and emergency vents are typically operated less than 200 hours per year. This does not justify the expense for the continuous monitoring equipment suggested.
Chapter 6
Page 6-6, Line 7: OSHA regulations apply to the trans
portation of vinyl chloride. 29 C.F.R. 5 1910.1017(a)(3). We
*
- k-
'*V understand that rail and tank cars are purged to contrc . devices
\ ,
, l*1
s.
'
f.V-
Page 6-7, Section 6.3.4: An ea ier Battelle Report
v*
,d ,P-
on /CM emissions from a landfill was a major factor in EPA*s
- f
L**' ' *
August 1979 proposal to list as hazardous waste PVC sludge and
l^j a 4
V
! .
1
other related wastes. SPI submitted comments to EPA's Office
-\
of Solid Waste, pointing out that (1) the Battelle information
b*
was out of date, (2) the Battelle Report was considered when
y'
i*
/v EPA prepared its NESEAF regulation for VCM, (3) subsequent indus-
4 V
hr _ .*
r v t esting shows the existence of substantially lower concentra
H .*
tions of VCM at landfills, and (4) the NESHA? stripping require
F- >
ments have resulted in lower RVCM
PVC waste Fur ther
consideration of this
unwar r anted.
II-.-. h. > ' J N . --iljl
rr> . S 1 f-,-
I - . 1 , +VJ; . > . #t'
iM
t
i^:-^'
K , .Vi' 'It -;X^A-''V it *>
/ "* -- %
V
tea
L' v`,t < '*'
rv
, *.
:* *; " yik>t ' :/ .
, i
\^ Vj
PQ
i*
1-
198 3
VTMi, * H. I
hr
tl* * j
i.. i
i
n
*i
H A
A
r Vi +. ..Vt" *
:r,
Xl*v jf
Page 7
ion 7.1s In general, the iaiDact
other
2S#i
regulations
understated
this chapter.
i"
l.*"*
c, ;*1
Page 7
Section 7.2*1: The viability
EPA ' s air bor ne
->
s .
carcinogen policy
highly questionable, as noted previously.
Page 7-
Line 34: Implementation
the California
South Coast Air Quality Managment District (SCAQKD) requirements
would present great hardship
industr v This andard
A not baaed on verified, scientific evidence and should, therefore,
14
*v
not
implemented in any new areas.
A`
i' *
Page 7-12, Line
Ambient water quality criteria for
I*
vinyl chloride was published
EPA in October, 1980.
Fed.
* r "*
Reg. 56,628 (Oct.
1979'. The reference
effluent guidelines
w
should
changed
Fed. Reg. 11,828 (Mar
1983) .
CONCLUSION
Hi ,*
kv- EPA shoulc. proceed to develop the needed administrative
-+ - '*t t
changes
the current standard on an expeditious basis.
41
s
are available
assist with this work.
Any substantive revision
the VC standard must
based on the development of health effects d-ta that demonstrates
^.
11 1 I
*7 .
*
V ,
if A.
L.4
i*
> <\
A 4i a..
'V v *jw
(*
-'W T *?j
dw
V +1
Kt A*
t +'
r*w
W" -
np-
?!i IfeamrUtHfWMHf^ rfl ?
FMU'HUl
l -fra
H H-!H !*!!* Ff - : =
! -!| .?<............ = '
-- *1 ti* -4*i *
sJ 'h JL
&W. ':
i_>
t *
-6
*. f
1V.N * ?
t:.
y 'i *.
J-i
j*
n '
C. Berry
April 14/ 1983
Pact 23
* fV*** '*' -
^7 ^
1 w V'
'f. *F *r*%-** if - -p^i
rj
public health benefit from reduced emissions. Any revision
> standard not supported fcy new health effects data would
7 ..
violate the "ample margin of safety" test of of the Clean Air
- -.1
Act,
provisions of Executive Order 12291, and judicial guid
ance.
#..
ft 1
*4". t EPA should consider the need for additional field monitor after available data are evaluated. Certainly, decisions
bring further activities under regulation cannot be supported
without actual measurements. A health eff ects study will also
r'equired.
*A'r
SPI appreciates this opportunity to comment on the vinyl
g-j_ .
I^ju.
chloride review study end is willing to discuss these points
VI
1 with EPA in greater detail at any time.
Lit * *' 4. T
*'?**
V
li1 t , <r;
Of Counsel:
Very truly yours,
G. R. Munger President
THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS
INDUSTRY, INC.
Jerome H. Heckman Peter L. de la Cru2
I mrr -
Keller and Heckman
*T
Suite 1000 * +. 1150 17th Street, N w
Washington, D.C.
f^. (202) 457-1110
-J H
-if It.
-
,
' r '
Enclosures
,j
.
00114788'
. . ::
` - I.................. ..... I
hL
:j| u..
itH -